Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3(a)(2)¶
American Bar Association. (2020). Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3(a)(2): Candor Toward the Tribunal.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Cherry Picking
- Reasoning and argumentation — the named fallacy in informal logic and critical-thinking pedagogy ("incomplete evidence," "suppressed evidence"). Scientific communication and meta-research — selective outcome reporting in clinical trials and the popular framing of publication bias, constrained structurally by pre-registration and systematic review. Journalism and political rhetoric — citing supporting anecdotes, statistics, or expert quotes while omitting countervailing ones to manufacture a one-sided impression. Marketing claims — "9 out of 10 dentists" subgroup framings and selectively quoted reviews, displaying a favorable slice of an available population. Legal argumentation — hostile selective use of precedent or expert testimony, against which rules of professional conduct require a lawyer to disclose directly adverse controlling authority.
This sourceABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(2), under which a lawyer must not knowingly fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction directly adverse to the client's position and not disclosed by opposing counsel - a duty owed as to controlling authority, and not the instrument that governs selective use of expert testimony.
Supported in partVerified against the source
- Reasoning and argumentation — the named fallacy in informal logic and critical-thinking pedagogy ("incomplete evidence," "suppressed evidence"). Scientific communication and meta-research — selective outcome reporting in clinical trials and the popular framing of publication bias, constrained structurally by pre-registration and systematic review. Journalism and political rhetoric — citing supporting anecdotes, statistics, or expert quotes while omitting countervailing ones to manufacture a one-sided impression. Marketing claims — "9 out of 10 dentists" subgroup framings and selectively quoted reviews, displaying a favorable slice of an available population. Legal argumentation — hostile selective use of precedent or expert testimony, against which rules of professional conduct require a lawyer to disclose directly adverse controlling authority.
Mechanisms¶
- Adverse-Precedent Search Protocol
- In fields with a professional duty of candor
This sourceRequires advocates to disclose known, directly adverse controlling authority not already disclosed by opposing counsel.
- In fields with a professional duty of candor
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 2 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:ffef5e503b0b · see in the full table